Does Slashdot.org have and option to remove a users's data from their servers?
Not having such an option is definitely a violation of many country's laws, though probably not those of US national or state laws where the rights of people over their data seems to be extremely limited.
"Overall, the most obvious result of the S.P.A.M. experiment was that the PC that McAfee had provided for the project noticeably slowed down, clogged up with spyware, Mooney says."
It wasn't the PC that slowed down but the operating system. It would have been interesting to conduct that experiment with people using several differen operating systems and then look at the amount of damage and spyware found.
I have had so many bad experiences with Netgear that this won't change my mind of avoiding their products. The replies I got about missing Linux support for cards and other products were arrogant and not very interested at all. Thanks, but no thanks.
Thank you for your long reply. I agree with most of what you say and I can only reiterate that I would certainly love to see open specifications and open drivers for everything out there. I never said that Linux should be like Windows -- but I would like to see it become an alternative to Windows that can be used in ways very similar to how people use Windows computers. And that means connecting a huge amount of strange hardware.
So yes, having open source drivers for everything would be great. However I think that we can agree that this wont happen, even if some vendors already do provide this. So what remains is really more a strategic decision than a technical one: how should Linux development proceed in order to maximize user happyness.
I think you greatly exaggerate the issue of kernel versions. First, while interfaces do have and will change, it should not be that hard to find a comprimise and freese some stuff for a certain period in time. Second, *if* a company, for whatever reasons, commits to providing a closed source driver for linux, there will be a chance (though of course not a guarantee) for them to update the driver to newer kernel versions. It is already happening.
I do not think that experience proved me wrong and if you look at distro support forums and HW dbs you will find endless lists of devices that do not work, work only after endless hacks or produce contradicting results (because vendors do not care to document a change in chipset or similar). My fear is that this will get worse and that the reverse-engineering appraoch wont be able to keep up.
My fear is also, that more and more hardware where obfuscation and content licensing issues matter to the hardware vendors will become important: once that happens, the pressure on companies will be even higher not to go opensource.
I still think that kernel developers should do their best to make Linux a "friendly environment" that is intended to run with opensource drivers and applications, but that still will provide also a framework for closed source drivers and applications. In other words, a friendly OS for users and companies.
I do't specifically want it but would certainly prefer it to no driver at all. And *that* is the situation we are currently in, unfortunately.
The current situation is a terrible ugly mess unless you are happy with just the core hardware components and not too new versions of them. Look into the support forums of any distro about how users are struggling and getting frustrated, and I predict that this will get worse, not better in the future, because the development speed of new hardware increases, WLan, USB3, new chipsets, new mobile devices etc, will appear and get used by many people more and more. Linux has to put #1 priority on somehow supporting this or it will forever remain an insignificant niche reserved to the technically inclined and geeks (on the desktop that is, but that is what we are talking about here).
Look I am not advocation binary drivers. I just feel that it is useless to *demand* them from the companies involved if we do not even get decent binary ones. Of course it would be ideal if all hardware vendors would publish detailed technical specification of their devices, would proviced opensource drivers etc. But these companies have motivations why they do not do that. So in order for the end Linux user to suffer least, do not insist on opensource drivers but make it as easy as possible to provide whatever they feel safe with, without at the same time putting the system at hazard technically.
Yes, this might lead to problems with kernel versions or distributions, but 1) maybe the kernel developers could concentrate on providing an infrastructure that minimizes those problems for the providers of binary drivers and 2) some hardware vendors will rather deal with this than provide opensource drivers.
This is in reality not a simple choice between terrible and ideal but rather between terrible and slightly less terrible.
Is it technically impossible to provide for closed-source drivers in Linux? Or is this just yet another religious issue from people who want to force their own views on anyone else?
Many people simply want Linux as an alternative to Windows, and a good alternative it is already. But insisting on open-source drivers will make the situation worse, not better in the long run: more and more special-purpose hardware is getting attached to the computer; mobile devices, chipcard readers, entertainment devices, GPS devices... the list goes on and on.
It is simply naive to think that we will get open-source drivers for all of these. We can be happy if we get some sort of half-baked closed source driver.
At the current moment I have the following devices that do not work fully with Linux:
- A canon camera: PTP transfer works, but under Windows I can also remote control it, do timed picture grabs, remote view the sensor -- none of which works with Linux
- A Garming GPS device: nearly nothing works under Linux, the software for managing (proprietary of course) maps is only available under Windows, routes management only works with that software
- A Sony-Ericcson mobile phone: mounting as a removable device works, but there is no decent support for synchronizing as under Windows
- All-in-one printer/fax/copier most of these do not work or are limited under Linux in comparison to Windows. Nearly all ink printers still have severe limitations under Linux.
- Wireless: several cards I have tried to not work at all or do not supprot WPA
- A digital multimeter: only comes with software that runs under Windows
- A chip-card reader and the infrastructure to use it for secure payment and authentification - only usable under Windows and Mac.
I do not think that the make everything opensource issue is of such a high priority yet when all these things actually prevent the use of Linux: if somebody does have to use Windows or Mac to use any of the things they need, why should they use Linux in the first place?
While I like the idea of open source and develop nearly exclusively open-source myself, i find it counterproductive to insist on open-source drivers. This is not a religious war, or should not be. This should be about pragmatically doing everything to create a useful alternative to other OS. This should be about making Linux successful.
It simply will never happen that we get open-source drivers for all the hardware Windows users are enjoying. Make it as easy as possible to get *any* form of driver, make it so that binary drivers cannot kill the system and it will still be difficult to get enough drivers to not make users shy away from Linux.
Then, when we have 50% market share you can start putting pressure on hardware vendors, not now.
Like all religion. Cults of nonsense. Anyone should be allowed to follow whatever cults of nonsense they fancy as long as they do not harm or limit the freedom of others. However, no cult of nonsense should get any legal protection or special status.
And it is time that people do something against the intellectual and non-intellectual abuse of innocent children by parents, relatives and their social peers who are follwers of cults of nonsense, be that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, SoC, or any other such cult.
For the simple reason that the UK is a democracy. These things are planned or exist because the citizens elected representatives who support this and not those who oppose. This is because so many voters have no clue. Stop blaming the bloody government and blame yourselves and your fellow citizens. Might not be so easy, but nearer to the truth.
I really do not care except that it is insane to force people to get adapted to different relative locations of OK and Cancel. Somebody adapted to one way will constantly make mistakes when forced to the other way.
What I find odd about many statements about this issue is that many here seem to complain about copyright law giving those people the right to control the distribution of that book. I really do not see the issue with this: of course the bad guys can control there nonsense just as well as the good guys can control their science fiction books, geek movies and what have you. I think copyright laws could be improved, are going into a direction that is bad (with very long periods of protection) and are sometimes applied in situations that are questionable.
But overall, copyright is a good thing for those who actually create stuff. It is their decision if and how others can use their stuff. They are always free to not impose any restrictions, but they should not be forced to not impose any restrictions.
However, nearly no one here seems to have issues with the fact that obviously religious group get a lot of protection by the law and especially in the US, any group of fanatic idiots who call themselves a "relgion" get protection. That obviously includes the right to torture and abuse children physically and intellectually by forcing absurd rituals and illogic thinking upon them.
I am not an US citizen and the copyright laws here in Europe are different from US laws. At least in my country (Austria) the copyright (called "rights of the originator" here) is not limited to any particular purpose. What it says is this: the originator of any work that involved some significant creativity has the right to decide what happens to it and how it is used, sold, copied etc. This OF COURSE includes the right to keep it secret or limit its distribution.
And why not?
I am an atheist, but why shouldn't Mormons have the right to keep their nonsense secret to their sect?
If there is something that need to be fixed then those stupid laws that grant protection to every group of idiots that call themselves "religion".
This is just a normal case of copyright infringement. Somebody holds the copyright and does not want somebody else to publish the book. Whether it is this book or a bestselling novel does not matter. I wonder how those who talk about "gagging" here would actually want copyright laws to work? Abandon them alltogether and let anyone publish whatever they like? Or just allow the publishing of something when some group decides it is "evil"?
Of course, news media should have the right to publish excerpts from anything that is news or relevant and in most countries this is legal (i do not know about the US). So if you want to report about some weird/dangerous,/ridiculous issues in this book, provide a write-up (your own words of what is in there: legal) and support it with facsimiles of excerpts of the original (small parts: legal).
I have heard that argument often. I agree that looking at CP should not really get compared to actual abuse -- and in many countries the law actually does make that distinction (dont know about your country).
But imagine for a moment you are the now grown up boy or girl whose picture depicting your rape has been taken against your will and you know fat creepy guys all over the globe are exchanging your picture and wanking off to it all the time. You know a picture of you showing you in a traumatizing, degrading, humiliating situation gets exchanged and is in the possession of other people. Would you care?
There are other arguments like the de-sensibilization of viewers which require more expert knowledge about psyche and sexuality which I do not have. But I think those actually do argue that viewing those pictures can increase the likelihood of the viewer to actually do something.
Slashdot Mirror
Does Slashdot.org have and option to remove a users's data from their servers?
Not having such an option is definitely a violation of many country's laws, though probably not those of US national or state laws where the rights of people over their data seems to be extremely limited.
Or are you such a nerd that you actually prefer Silicon boobs?
"Overall, the most obvious result of the S.P.A.M. experiment was that the PC that McAfee had provided for the project noticeably slowed down, clogged up with spyware, Mooney says."
It wasn't the PC that slowed down but the operating system. It would have been interesting to conduct that experiment with people using several differen operating systems and then look at the amount of damage and spyware found.
I have never seen these kinds of problems but maybe you get what you want when you use the Flashblock Firefox addon?
I have had so many bad experiences with Netgear that this won't change my mind of avoiding their products. The replies I got about missing Linux support for cards and other products were arrogant and not very interested at all.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Thank you for your long reply. I agree with most of what you say and I can only reiterate that I would certainly love to see open specifications and open drivers for everything out there. I never said that Linux should be like Windows -- but I would like to see it become an alternative to Windows that can be used in ways very similar to how people use Windows computers. And that means connecting a huge amount of strange hardware.
So yes, having open source drivers for everything would be great.
However I think that we can agree that this wont happen, even if some vendors already do provide this. So what remains is really more a strategic decision than a technical one: how should Linux development proceed in order to maximize user happyness.
I think you greatly exaggerate the issue of kernel versions. First, while interfaces do have and will change, it should not be that hard to find a comprimise and freese some stuff for a certain period in time. Second, *if* a company, for whatever reasons, commits to providing a closed source driver for linux, there will be a chance (though of course not a guarantee) for them to update the driver to newer kernel versions. It is already happening.
I do not think that experience proved me wrong and if you look at distro support forums and HW dbs you will find endless lists of devices that do not work, work only after endless hacks or produce contradicting results (because vendors do not care to document a change in chipset or similar). My fear is that this will get worse and that the reverse-engineering appraoch wont be able to keep up.
My fear is also, that more and more hardware where obfuscation and content licensing issues matter to the hardware vendors will become important: once that happens, the pressure on companies will be even higher not to go opensource.
I still think that kernel developers should do their best to make Linux a "friendly environment" that is intended to run with opensource drivers and applications, but that still will provide also a framework for closed source drivers and applications.
In other words, a friendly OS for users and companies.
I do't specifically want it but would certainly prefer it to no driver at all. And *that* is the situation we are currently in, unfortunately.
The current situation is a terrible ugly mess unless you are happy with just the core hardware components and not too new versions of them.
Look into the support forums of any distro about how users are struggling and getting frustrated, and I predict that this will get worse, not better in the future, because the development speed of new hardware increases, WLan, USB3, new chipsets, new mobile devices etc, will appear and get used by many people more and more.
Linux has to put #1 priority on somehow supporting this or it will forever remain an insignificant niche reserved to the technically inclined and geeks (on the desktop that is, but that is what we are talking about here).
Look I am not advocation binary drivers. I just feel that it is useless to *demand* them from the companies involved if we do not even get decent binary ones. Of course it would be ideal if all hardware vendors would publish detailed technical specification of their devices, would proviced opensource drivers etc.
But these companies have motivations why they do not do that. So in order for the end Linux user to suffer least, do not insist on opensource drivers but make it as easy as possible to provide whatever they feel safe with, without at the same time putting the system at hazard technically.
Yes, this might lead to problems with kernel versions or distributions, but 1) maybe the kernel developers could concentrate on providing an infrastructure that minimizes those problems for the providers of binary drivers and 2) some hardware vendors will rather deal with this than provide opensource drivers.
This is in reality not a simple choice between terrible and ideal but rather between terrible and slightly less terrible.
Is it technically impossible to provide for closed-source drivers in Linux? Or is this just yet another religious issue from people who want to force their own views on anyone else?
Many people simply want Linux as an alternative to Windows, and a good alternative it is already. But insisting on open-source drivers will make the situation worse, not better in the long run: more and more special-purpose hardware is getting attached to the computer; mobile devices, chipcard readers, entertainment devices, GPS devices ... the list goes on and on.
It is simply naive to think that we will get open-source drivers for all of these. We can be happy if we get some sort of half-baked closed source driver.
At the current moment I have the following devices that do not work fully with Linux:
- A canon camera: PTP transfer works, but under Windows I can also remote control it, do timed picture grabs, remote view the sensor -- none of which works with Linux
- A Garming GPS device: nearly nothing works under Linux, the software for managing (proprietary of course) maps is only available under Windows, routes management only works with that software
- A Sony-Ericcson mobile phone: mounting as a removable device works, but there is no decent support for synchronizing as under Windows
- All-in-one printer/fax/copier most of these do not work or are limited under Linux in comparison to Windows. Nearly all ink printers still have severe limitations under Linux.
- Wireless: several cards I have tried to not work at all or do not supprot WPA
- A digital multimeter: only comes with software that runs under Windows
- A chip-card reader and the infrastructure to use it for secure payment and authentification - only usable under Windows and Mac.
I do not think that the make everything opensource issue is of such a high priority yet when all these things actually prevent the use of Linux: if somebody does have to use Windows or Mac to use any of the things they need, why should they use Linux in the first place?
Why didn't we think of it! Make an oath and be gone with misconduct and greed and fraud. We can all see how well that works with doctors.
While I like the idea of open source and develop nearly exclusively open-source myself, i find it counterproductive to insist on open-source drivers. This is not a religious war, or should not be. This should be about pragmatically doing everything to create a useful alternative to other OS. This should be about making Linux successful.
It simply will never happen that we get open-source drivers for all the hardware Windows users are enjoying. Make it as easy as possible to get *any* form of driver, make it so that binary drivers cannot kill the system and it will still be difficult to get enough drivers to not make users shy away from Linux.
Then, when we have 50% market share you can start putting pressure on hardware vendors, not now.
not the ones doing this ... the ones letting it happen to them.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/433
You have been using encrypted email all along, didn't you?
Activate checkbox "encrypt" and you are done.
Like all religion. Cults of nonsense.
Anyone should be allowed to follow whatever cults of nonsense they fancy as long as they do not harm or limit the freedom of others.
However, no cult of nonsense should get any legal protection or special status.
And it is time that people do something against the intellectual and non-intellectual abuse of innocent children by parents, relatives and their social peers who are follwers of cults of nonsense, be that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, SoC, or any other such cult.
For the simple reason that the UK is a democracy. These things are planned or exist because the citizens elected representatives who support this and not those who oppose. This is because so many voters have no clue. Stop blaming the bloody government and blame yourselves and your fellow citizens. Might not be so easy, but nearer to the truth.
I really do not care except that it is insane to force people to get adapted to different relative locations of OK and Cancel.
Somebody adapted to one way will constantly make mistakes when forced to the other way.
Can you give a reference that supports that claim?
Does the law itself give a rationale that would supprot this claim?
The problem with Copyright+Religion is Religion, not Copyright.
What I find odd about many statements about this issue is that many here seem to complain about copyright law giving those people the right to control the distribution of that book. I really do not see the issue with this: of course the bad guys can control there nonsense just as well as the good guys can control their science fiction books, geek movies and what have you. I think copyright laws could be improved, are going into a direction that is bad (with very long periods of protection) and are sometimes applied in situations that are questionable.
But overall, copyright is a good thing for those who actually create stuff. It is their decision if and how others can use their stuff. They are always free to not impose any restrictions, but they should not be forced to not impose any restrictions.
However, nearly no one here seems to have issues with the fact that obviously religious group get a lot of protection by the law and especially in the US, any group of fanatic idiots who call themselves a "relgion" get protection. That obviously includes the right to torture and abuse children physically and intellectually by forcing absurd rituals and illogic thinking upon them.
Why isn't anyone protesting this absurdity?
I am not an US citizen and the copyright laws here in Europe are different from US laws. At least in my country (Austria) the copyright (called "rights of the originator" here) is not limited to any particular purpose. What it says is this: the originator of any work that involved some significant creativity has the right to decide what happens to it and how it is used, sold, copied etc.
This OF COURSE includes the right to keep it secret or limit its distribution.
And why not?
I am an atheist, but why shouldn't Mormons have the right to keep their nonsense secret to their sect?
If there is something that need to be fixed then those stupid laws that grant protection to every group of idiots that call themselves "religion".
This is just a normal case of copyright infringement. Somebody holds the copyright and does not want somebody else to publish the book. Whether it is this book or a bestselling novel does not matter.
I wonder how those who talk about "gagging" here would actually want copyright laws to work? Abandon them alltogether and let anyone publish whatever they like? Or just allow the publishing of something when some group decides it is "evil"?
Of course, news media should have the right to publish excerpts from anything that is news or relevant and in most countries this is legal (i do not know about the US). So if you want to report about some weird/dangerous,/ridiculous issues in this book, provide a write-up (your own words of what is in there: legal) and support it with facsimiles of excerpts of the original (small parts: legal).
What would be the problem with that?
that you use the google bar and/or have enabled google history? This is not normal behavior.
I have heard that argument often. I agree that looking at CP should not really get compared to actual abuse -- and in many countries the law actually does make that distinction (dont know about your country).
But imagine for a moment you are the now grown up boy or girl whose picture depicting your rape has been taken against your will and you know fat creepy guys all over the globe are exchanging your picture and wanking off to it all the time. You know a picture of you showing you in a traumatizing, degrading, humiliating situation gets exchanged and is in the possession of other people. Would you care?
There are other arguments like the de-sensibilization of viewers which require more expert knowledge about psyche and sexuality which I do not have. But I think those actually do argue that viewing those pictures can increase the likelihood of the viewer to actually do something.
Thats good news -- thanks.